Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

¹H NMR: Long-Range Coupling01:27

¹H NMR: Long-Range Coupling

2.9K
The coupling interactions of nuclei across four or more bonds are usually weak, with J values less than 1 Hz. While these are usually not observed in spectra, the presence of multiple bonds along the coupling pathway can result in observable long-range coupling.
In alkenes, spin information is communicated via σ–π overlap, as seen in allylic (four-bond) and homoallylic (five-bond) couplings. These coupling interactions are stronger when the σ bond is parallel to the alkene...
2.9K
¹H NMR: Interpreting Distorted and Overlapping Signals01:02

¹H NMR: Interpreting Distorted and Overlapping Signals

1.7K
Spin systems where the difference in chemical shifts of the coupled nuclei is greater than ten times J are called first-order spin systems. These nuclei are weakly coupled, and their chemical shifts and coupling constant can generally be estimated from the well-separated signals in the spectrum.
As Δν decreases and the signals move closer, the doublets appear increasingly distorted. The intensities of the inner lines increase at the cost of those of the outer lines as the signals are...
1.7K
Spin–Spin Coupling: One-Bond Coupling01:17

Spin–Spin Coupling: One-Bond Coupling

1.6K
Coupling interactions are strongest between NMR-active nuclei bonded to each other, where spin information can be transmitted directly through the pair of bonding electrons. While nuclei polarize their electrons to the opposite spins, the bonding electron pair has opposite spins. Configurations with antiparallel nuclear spins are expected to be lower in energy. When coupling makes antiparallel states more favorable, J is considered to have a positive value. The one-bond coupling constant, 1J,...
1.6K
Spin–Spin Coupling: Two-Bond Coupling (Geminal Coupling)01:20

Spin–Spin Coupling: Two-Bond Coupling (Geminal Coupling)

1.9K
Two NMR-active nuclei bonded to a central atom can be involved in geminal or two-bond coupling. Geminal coupling is commonly seen between diastereotopic protons in chiral molecules and unsymmetrical alkenes, among others.
The central atom need not be NMR-active because its electrons are affected by the electron polarization of the spin-active atoms. However, spin information is transmitted less effectively than in one-bond coupling, and 2J values are usually weaker than 1J values. The energy of...
1.9K
NMR Spectroscopy: Spin–Spin Coupling01:08

NMR Spectroscopy: Spin–Spin Coupling

3.6K
The spin state of an NMR-active nucleus can have a slight effect on its immediate electronic environment. This effect propagates through the intervening bonds and affects the electronic environments of NMR-active nuclei up to three bonds away; occasionally, even farther. This phenomenon is called spin–spin coupling or J-coupling. Coupling interactions are mutual and result in small changes in the absorption frequencies of both nuclei involved. While nuclei of the same element are involved...
3.6K
Spin–Spin Coupling: Three-Bond Coupling (Vicinal Coupling)01:22

Spin–Spin Coupling: Three-Bond Coupling (Vicinal Coupling)

1.7K
Vicinal or three-bond coupling is commonly observed between protons attached to adjacent carbons. Here, nuclear spin information is primarily transferred via electron spin interactions between adjacent C‑H bond orbitals. This generally favors the antiparallel arrangement of spins, so 3J values are usually positive.
The extent of coupling depends on the C‑C bond length, the two H‑C‑C angles, any electron-withdrawing substituents, and the dihedral angle between the involved orbitals. The...
1.7K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Universal Global Gates for a Fine-Structure Qubit in Strontium-88.

Physical review letters·2026
Same author

Generation of strong ultralow-phase-noise microwave fields with tunable ellipticity for ultracold polar molecules.

The Review of scientific instruments·2026
Same author

High-fidelity collisional quantum gates with fermionic atoms.

Nature·2026
Same author

Frozen elephant trunk implantation in zone 0 using a left subclavian stented prosthesis.

Multimedia manual of cardiothoracic surgery : MMCTS·2026
Same author

Observation of emergent scaling of spin-charge correlations at the onset of the pseudogap.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America·2026
Same author

Thirty years of Bose-Einstein condensation.

Nature·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Mar 22, 2026

Excitonic Hamiltonians for Calculating Optical Absorption Spectra and Optoelectronic Properties of Molecular Aggregates and Solids
08:04

Excitonic Hamiltonians for Calculating Optical Absorption Spectra and Optoelectronic Properties of Molecular Aggregates and Solids

Published on: May 27, 2020

9.1K

Coupling Identical one-dimensional Many-Body Localized Systems.

Pranjal Bordia1,2, Henrik P Lüschen1,2, Sean S Hodgman1,2,3

  • 1Fakultät für Physik, Ludwig-Maximillians-Universität München, Schellingstraße 4, 80799 Munich, Germany.

Physical Review Letters
|April 23, 2016
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Coupling disordered one-dimensional many-body localized systems with ultracold fermions causes delocalization. Unlike noninteracting Anderson localization, interacting systems show enhanced conductivity when tubes are coupled.

More Related Videos

An Analog Macroscopic Technique for Studying Molecular Hydrodynamic Processes in Dense Gases and Liquids
11:03

An Analog Macroscopic Technique for Studying Molecular Hydrodynamic Processes in Dense Gases and Liquids

Published on: December 4, 2017

9.1K
Resonance Raman Spectroscopy of Extreme Nanowires and Other 1D Systems
07:44

Resonance Raman Spectroscopy of Extreme Nanowires and Other 1D Systems

Published on: April 28, 2016

15.7K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Mar 22, 2026

Excitonic Hamiltonians for Calculating Optical Absorption Spectra and Optoelectronic Properties of Molecular Aggregates and Solids
08:04

Excitonic Hamiltonians for Calculating Optical Absorption Spectra and Optoelectronic Properties of Molecular Aggregates and Solids

Published on: May 27, 2020

9.1K
An Analog Macroscopic Technique for Studying Molecular Hydrodynamic Processes in Dense Gases and Liquids
11:03

An Analog Macroscopic Technique for Studying Molecular Hydrodynamic Processes in Dense Gases and Liquids

Published on: December 4, 2017

9.1K
Resonance Raman Spectroscopy of Extreme Nanowires and Other 1D Systems
07:44

Resonance Raman Spectroscopy of Extreme Nanowires and Other 1D Systems

Published on: April 28, 2016

15.7K

Area of Science:

  • Quantum physics
  • Condensed matter physics
  • Ultracold atomic gases

Background:

  • Many-body localization (MBL) describes the failure of thermalization in interacting disordered quantum systems.
  • Anderson localization describes the localization of waves in disordered media, typically in noninteracting systems.
  • Understanding the interplay between interactions, disorder, and dimensionality is crucial for quantum many-body physics.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To experimentally investigate the impact of coupling on one-dimensional many-body localized systems with identical disorder.
  • To compare the behavior of interacting (MBL) and noninteracting (Anderson) localized systems under coupling.
  • To explore the transition from localized to delocalized states in these systems.

Main Methods:

  • Utilizing a gas of ultracold fermions confined in an optical lattice.
  • Artificially preparing an initial charge density wave state.
  • Introducing quasirandom on-site disorder within a 1D array of tubes.
  • Monitoring system dynamics over extended periods (thousands of tunneling times).

Main Results:

  • Observed distinct behaviors between many-body localization and Anderson localization.
  • Confirmed that noninteracting systems (Anderson localization) remain localized even with coupling.
  • Demonstrated that coupling between tubes in the interacting case leads to delocalization of the entire system.

Conclusions:

  • Interactions fundamentally alter the response of disordered quantum systems to coupling.
  • Coupling can overcome localization effects in interacting systems, leading to delocalization.
  • This work highlights the unique nature of many-body localization compared to single-particle localization phenomena.